First Page
Previous Page
Posted 08/01/2010 11:43 pm
Carmykle, I am aware of what your point was. Being an observer to the strike itself probably would not be very telling as the distance between upper an lower dies was extremely small, and the strikes were blurringly fast.
I understand also that in 21st century Utopian terms, in laboratory environments, physicists, engineers and mathematicians could ponder limitless possibilities at great length, but to what end? This coin was produced in 1878, its predecessors were produced in 1873 and 1840, and every year in between, all of the same size and weight. What are the benefits of having equations and 'flow' channels all worked out in idea and on paper for 'who' to complete to what degree of decreed accuracy using what tools?
This is the realm of the master craftsman. Experience and sheer talent guided the engraver to the proper depth and width of each cut.
The dies were not engraved by CNC router, or any computer controlled machinery that already has all of the depth of devices entered into it as modern day process may. The working dies were created by working hubs, which were created by master dies, which were created by a master hub.
The design on a coin started out as a hand drawn sketch on paper. The engraver then prepared a wax model of this design with simple hand tools that was considerably larger (approximately five times the size of) a finished coin. This was done for ease of design engraving. From this wax model, a plaster cast was made, and from it a mold was then made, covered in copper in the form of powder, and electroplated with layers of both nickel and copper to approximately a 1/16" thickness. Finally, this mold received a backing of lead. By use of a machine called a transfer lathe, the design was reduced in pantograph from this mold to the master hub. Every stage thus far required painstaking touch up by the engraver to sustain desired design aesthetics. This was the reality of 19th century mint technology.
I rather think that the main barrier to understanding why things did not happen as you may envision the optimal process, is the hang up with "flow".....there is no flow of gas or liquid. This is displacement of a solid. Remember the example I gave of the playdough molds? How much consideration to flow was given in the creation of these toys? Were they considered manifolds by their creators, or just molds? No need to reply with answers here. You may well be as tired of this discussion as I am. Our differences are neither here nor there when it comes down to the professional and educational backgrounds of the folks who actually made these coins.
I understand also that in 21st century Utopian terms, in laboratory environments, physicists, engineers and mathematicians could ponder limitless possibilities at great length, but to what end? This coin was produced in 1878, its predecessors were produced in 1873 and 1840, and every year in between, all of the same size and weight. What are the benefits of having equations and 'flow' channels all worked out in idea and on paper for 'who' to complete to what degree of decreed accuracy using what tools?
This is the realm of the master craftsman. Experience and sheer talent guided the engraver to the proper depth and width of each cut.
The dies were not engraved by CNC router, or any computer controlled machinery that already has all of the depth of devices entered into it as modern day process may. The working dies were created by working hubs, which were created by master dies, which were created by a master hub.
The design on a coin started out as a hand drawn sketch on paper. The engraver then prepared a wax model of this design with simple hand tools that was considerably larger (approximately five times the size of) a finished coin. This was done for ease of design engraving. From this wax model, a plaster cast was made, and from it a mold was then made, covered in copper in the form of powder, and electroplated with layers of both nickel and copper to approximately a 1/16" thickness. Finally, this mold received a backing of lead. By use of a machine called a transfer lathe, the design was reduced in pantograph from this mold to the master hub. Every stage thus far required painstaking touch up by the engraver to sustain desired design aesthetics. This was the reality of 19th century mint technology.
I rather think that the main barrier to understanding why things did not happen as you may envision the optimal process, is the hang up with "flow".....there is no flow of gas or liquid. This is displacement of a solid. Remember the example I gave of the playdough molds? How much consideration to flow was given in the creation of these toys? Were they considered manifolds by their creators, or just molds? No need to reply with answers here. You may well be as tired of this discussion as I am. Our differences are neither here nor there when it comes down to the professional and educational backgrounds of the folks who actually made these coins.
